Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not at all. Right wingers keep proving they don't care about the Poor people. Businesses pass on costs to their consumers all the time. Right wingers make it seem like y'all only have a problem when even the Poor may benefit under our form of Capitalism.Exactly. Liberals have deluded themselves into believing that minimum wage laws force those evil business owners to pay their employees more. Quite literally, the laws don't do that. All they do is make jobs that are worth less than the declared minimum illegal. Many liberals actually believe government can change the value of something by simply declaring it to be so. By their logic, government could make us all ten times richer by simply declaring all our money to be worth ten times as much ($1 = $10, $10 = $100, etc ...). And many of them would probably support such a move.
The rest of them know damned well that minimum wage laws don't do what they pretend. Regardless, the issue inspires the uneducated and the stupid, AND gives government more power over the economy. That makes the issue irresistible to Democrats. Many Republican also support it for the same reasons.
While it may be true that republicans may donate more to charity, social services in red States tend to be less and right wingers also tend to enact policies which have the effect of criminalizing poverty. With right wingers, it may seem that they giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other.Republicans have done the most for the poor. If you look at charitable donations, Republicans and specifically Religious Conservatives which are overwhelmingly Republican, we donate more money, and more of our personal time, to helping others than left-wingers or Democrats.
Whatever You May Think of Republicans, Don't Call Them 'Stingy' | RealClearMarkets
Republicans are greedy. Theyre out for themselves as evidenced by their reflexive support of tax cuts for the rich. According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, the GOP is the...www.realclearmarkets.com
This is universally documented. Dozens of research papers all point to the fact that Republicans in generally are vastly more charitable than left-wingers and Democrats.
By a wide margine too.
Further, Republicans have better results than Democrats.
Republicans use private charities, which help people actually get out of poverty. Not stay in it like Democrats.
For example, we have a charity here in the city, that helps ex-covicts. Free room and board. They can stay there for up to 4 years. They get job training, and job placement.
I worked at the shelter down town, which provided job training programs, and placement into apprenticeships, and we paid for moving expenses to help, typically women with children, to get into an apartment of their own.
None of the government programs do any of that. Instead people stay on welfare, and never move out of their poverty condition.
So unlike Democrats, we actually help people.
And by the way, Democrats never even attempt to help people. They say "we're helping people" but the reality is, no Democrat votes to support taxing themselves. They want to tax OTHER PEOPLE, to pay for the programs they claim will help.
Name one time that a Democrat on stage in from of hundreds of thousands of middle class people, told everyone "We're going to tax the middle class, to help the poor!". Never. They only claim they will tax OTHER people.
And if you vote Democrat with the expectation that you are not going to be the one taxed.... then you don't care about the poor at all. You only want other people to care for the poor, which makes you a stingy greedy miserly person.
Right wingers appeal to ignorance and ignorant platitudes. Dogs don't have backpacks to carry food to their pack. Right wingers only know how to "hate on the Poor" while enacting public policies that have the effect of creating hellish conditions on Earth through their useless and endless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which y'all also don't want to pay for with tax cut economics instead of with war time tax rates.As sure as a dog returns to its own vomit ,a Democrat will ALWAYS find a way to fuck up America.
Nothing but hypocrisy from the right wing. The South fought a war to keep slavery and enacted black codes that prove you wrong.Why are they POOR? The whole CONCEPT of America is PERSONAL Responsibility. Ponder that FACT, Libby.What have Republicans done to help the poor other than ensure we maintain a low wage workforce to enhance corporate profitsAnd that's why 70 years after the "war on poverty" we still have tens of millions staying poor, still waiting for some dumb democrat to fix their lives.
For the same reason some employers were helping their minimum wage labor to apply for government assistance to pass those costs on to the public sector instead of the consumers merely for their bottom line.When I employed people, Winger...I "took care" of my best low level employees by giving them promotions with accompanying raises! If someone was still working at minimum wage after twelve years my question would be why they weren't replaced with someone better at what they do?
Admit it, y'all prefer to hate on the Poor. Why not pass that cost on to your consumer like you do for every other cost that has no immediate benefit to the Poor?You seem to be missing the point (on purpose, I'm sure) - minimum wage does real harm.
Tell it to someone trying to feed a family
Tell it to someone trying to make money for college
Sorry you can no longer feed your family or go to college,
but with the new minimum wage, I can no longer afford to employ you. Good luck.......
Abolish your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to reduce those Big Government nanny-State regulatory costs which do nothing to help the Poor. Criminalizing poverty is not very charitable.Actually ,it is a threefold problem. Labor ,TAX ,and idiot climate Change Regulations.Yes. And they respond by cutting hours ,outsourcing ,and raising PRICES. So who gets the shaft in the end ,shit for brains? Try reading a book on economics.---But here is a simple equation for your simple mind. PRICE minus COST equals PROFIT. Labor and TAX are COSTS. Ponder that for a while,LIB.Sucks being a businessman because.....Shit happensTime for those businesses to start kicking over some of that tax cut to their employees
Perhaps it is.
But it's ignorant to believe that those businesses are simply going to accept it and let it adversely affect their bottom line. They won't. If their costs to do business increase, so will their prices...
That shit may include:
Increased rent
Increased cost of supplies
Increased taxes
Competition from other businesses
It may even include having to pay your employees more
Businesses adapt to “Shit happening”
If they can’t, they fail
If you run a burger shack and the price of ground beef doubles (it did) do outsource or Cut hours?
No you raise prices
I agree. There are prices you have no choice but to pass onto consumers.
Such as labor in a service industry.
But are you suggesting that every single company are incapable of outsourcing? No, there are many companies that very well can move operations out of the country, and they do.
Again, isn't that what the left-wing has been complaining about for decades, that companies are moving operations out of the country, because the cost of labor in China or India is lower?
Now you are arguing that raising the cost of labor never has any negative effect? Which is it?
Then you tell me, explain to me why companies are outsourcing to China if the cost of labor is not the factor?
Or are you actually trying to suggest that increasing how much you pay people..... doesn't increase the cost of labor?
You explain your logic here. You tell me how that works.
True, but left-wingers don't even acknowledge the negative impact of taxes and regulations.
But generally they admit that jobs move oversees. And most of the time, they claim that it is because labor is cheaper.
So I don't understand how they can claim the reason jobs are over seas is because labor is cheaper......
and turn around and say raising the minimum wage, which I think we can all agree increases the cost of labor.... won't have a negative impact,
.....five full seconds after admitting companies are moving jobs over seas because labor is cheaper.
Those two claims are mutually exclusive. One has to be false.
Why not pass legislation that actually helps the poor and those with few job skills? Why punish them with legislation that makes it harder for them to find or keep work?Admit it, y'all prefer to hate on the Poor. Why not pass that cost on to your consumer like you do for every other cost that has no immediate benefit to the Poor?You seem to be missing the point (on purpose, I'm sure) - minimum wage does real harm.
Tell it to someone trying to feed a family
Tell it to someone trying to make money for college
Sorry you can no longer feed your family or go to college,
but with the new minimum wage, I can no longer afford to employ you. Good luck.......
Yes it is. Criminalizing is simply making something illegal. Not declaring a war. Being the all powerful deciders here, declaring that poverty(*) is something we shall no longer tolerate is extremely charitable. Meaning and enforcing it only moreso. Excessively poor no longer being a thing we'll allow. Too poor to be considered one of us. Which necessitates either removing those found so lacking or providing them any shortfall. Clearly not just passing the buck by demanding they fix the problem for us.Criminalizing poverty is not very charitable.
Orshansky never intended for her simple calculation to be used as the definition of poverty in America for 50 years, but that is exactly what happened. And why not? It is very useful to have an income cutoff that defines poverty and lets us see how many people are below that number. That is why Orshansky’s method has lasted so long. Her calculation of poverty has been increased by the cost of living over the past 50 years, but otherwise her numbers are the foundation for defining poverty to this day.
In order for your theory to make sense...there would have to be a finite amount of wealth in existence. If that were the case then one person having a vast amount of wealth would have obviously prevented another person from having their fair share. Where your theory falls on it's face however is that there ISN'T a finite amount of wealth! It isn't that rich people have stolen wealth from poor people...it's that poor people haven't figured out how to gain wealth or worse have been promised a subsistence amount of wealth by politicians in return for their votes. All you're doing by criminalizing "excess" wealth is coming up with an excuse to steal wealth from one group to buy off another!Yes it is. Criminalizing is simply making something illegal. Not declaring a war. Being the all powerful deciders here, declaring that poverty(*) is something we shall no longer tolerate is extremely charitable. Meaning and enforcing it only moreso. Excessively poor no longer being a thing we'll allow. Too poor to be considered one of us. Which necessitates either removing those found so lacking or providing them any shortfall. Clearly not just passing the buck by demanding they fix the problem for us.Criminalizing poverty is not very charitable.
Now what would clearly balance the equation, yet is noticeably never discussed equally, is the bookend societal problem: excess wealth. Too rich to be considered one of us. Criminalize that and suddenly.. Whoa, it's a whole new world out there! Things are beginning to kind of make sense! We could absolutely effect a bunch of positive change! Oh noes! Can't have that!
(*)Orshansky never intended for her simple calculation to be used as the definition of poverty in America for 50 years, but that is exactly what happened. And why not? It is very useful to have an income cutoff that defines poverty and lets us see how many people are below that number. That is why Orshansky’s method has lasted so long. Her calculation of poverty has been increased by the cost of living over the past 50 years, but otherwise her numbers are the foundation for defining poverty to this day.
We could have solved simple poverty Yesterday but for right wing, hate on the Poor.Why not pass legislation that actually helps the poor and those with few job skills? Why punish them with legislation that makes it harder for them to find or keep work?
Propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for substantive action. Our alleged and endless war on poverty only institutionalized poverty and hardened right wingers attitudes against the Poor. There is a simple solution to poverty but right wingers seem to have the most problem with it, probably because they prefer to "hate on the Poor" to make it easier to exploit them.Yes it is. Criminalizing is simply making something illegal. Not declaring a war. Being the all powerful deciders here, declaring that poverty(*) is something we shall no longer tolerate is extremely charitable. Meaning and enforcing it only moreso. Excessively poor no longer being a thing we'll allow. Too poor to be considered one of us. Which necessitates either removing those found so lacking or providing them any shortfall. Clearly not just passing the buck by demanding they fix the problem for us.Criminalizing poverty is not very charitable.
Now what would clearly balance the equation, yet is noticeably never discussed equally, is the bookend societal problem: excess wealth. Too rich to be considered one of us. Criminalize that and suddenly.. Whoa, it's a whole new world out there! Things are beginning to kind of make sense! We could absolutely effect a bunch of positive change! Oh noes! Can't have that!
(*)Orshansky never intended for her simple calculation to be used as the definition of poverty in America for 50 years, but that is exactly what happened. And why not? It is very useful to have an income cutoff that defines poverty and lets us see how many people are below that number. That is why Orshansky’s method has lasted so long. Her calculation of poverty has been increased by the cost of living over the past 50 years, but otherwise her numbers are the foundation for defining poverty to this day.
In the US, those with the most "gold" tend to make the most rules. It is more difficult for the Poor to be able to afford justice under Capitalism. Slavery or black codes was not about right wingers being more charitable than the left.In order for your theory to make sense...there would have to be a finite amount of wealth in existence. If that were the case then one person having a vast amount of wealth would have obviously prevented another person from having their fair share. Where your theory falls on it's face however is that there ISN'T a finite amount of wealth! It isn't that rich people have stolen wealth from poor people...it's that poor people haven't figured out how to gain wealth or worse have been promised a subsistence amount of wealth by politicians in return for their votes. All you're doing by criminalizing "excess" wealth is coming up with an excuse to steal wealth from one group to buy off another!Yes it is. Criminalizing is simply making something illegal. Not declaring a war. Being the all powerful deciders here, declaring that poverty(*) is something we shall no longer tolerate is extremely charitable. Meaning and enforcing it only moreso. Excessively poor no longer being a thing we'll allow. Too poor to be considered one of us. Which necessitates either removing those found so lacking or providing them any shortfall. Clearly not just passing the buck by demanding they fix the problem for us.Criminalizing poverty is not very charitable.
Now what would clearly balance the equation, yet is noticeably never discussed equally, is the bookend societal problem: excess wealth. Too rich to be considered one of us. Criminalize that and suddenly.. Whoa, it's a whole new world out there! Things are beginning to kind of make sense! We could absolutely effect a bunch of positive change! Oh noes! Can't have that!
(*)Orshansky never intended for her simple calculation to be used as the definition of poverty in America for 50 years, but that is exactly what happened. And why not? It is very useful to have an income cutoff that defines poverty and lets us see how many people are below that number. That is why Orshansky’s method has lasted so long. Her calculation of poverty has been increased by the cost of living over the past 50 years, but otherwise her numbers are the foundation for defining poverty to this day.
Truly irony knows no bounds.Propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for substantive action. Our alleged and endless war on poverty only institutionalized poverty and hardened right wingers attitudes against the Poor. There is a simple solution to poverty but right wingers seem to have the most problem with it, probably because they prefer to "hate on the Poor" to make it easier to exploit them.Yes it is. Criminalizing is simply making something illegal. Not declaring a war. Being the all powerful deciders here, declaring that poverty(*) is something we shall no longer tolerate is extremely charitable. Meaning and enforcing it only moreso. Excessively poor no longer being a thing we'll allow. Too poor to be considered one of us. Which necessitates either removing those found so lacking or providing them any shortfall. Clearly not just passing the buck by demanding they fix the problem for us.Criminalizing poverty is not very charitable.
Now what would clearly balance the equation, yet is noticeably never discussed equally, is the bookend societal problem: excess wealth. Too rich to be considered one of us. Criminalize that and suddenly.. Whoa, it's a whole new world out there! Things are beginning to kind of make sense! We could absolutely effect a bunch of positive change! Oh noes! Can't have that!
(*)Orshansky never intended for her simple calculation to be used as the definition of poverty in America for 50 years, but that is exactly what happened. And why not? It is very useful to have an income cutoff that defines poverty and lets us see how many people are below that number. That is why Orshansky’s method has lasted so long. Her calculation of poverty has been increased by the cost of living over the past 50 years, but otherwise her numbers are the foundation for defining poverty to this day.
Once again. Why don't the worthless POOR help themselves? Welfare has become a way of life for some groups.Abolish your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to reduce those Big Government nanny-State regulatory costs which do nothing to help the Poor. Criminalizing poverty is not very charitable.Actually ,it is a threefold problem. Labor ,TAX ,and idiot climate Change Regulations.Yes. And they respond by cutting hours ,outsourcing ,and raising PRICES. So who gets the shaft in the end ,shit for brains? Try reading a book on economics.---But here is a simple equation for your simple mind. PRICE minus COST equals PROFIT. Labor and TAX are COSTS. Ponder that for a while,LIB.Sucks being a businessman because.....Shit happensTime for those businesses to start kicking over some of that tax cut to their employees
Perhaps it is.
But it's ignorant to believe that those businesses are simply going to accept it and let it adversely affect their bottom line. They won't. If their costs to do business increase, so will their prices...
That shit may include:
Increased rent
Increased cost of supplies
Increased taxes
Competition from other businesses
It may even include having to pay your employees more
Businesses adapt to “Shit happening”
If they can’t, they fail
If you run a burger shack and the price of ground beef doubles (it did) do outsource or Cut hours?
No you raise prices
I agree. There are prices you have no choice but to pass onto consumers.
Such as labor in a service industry.
But are you suggesting that every single company are incapable of outsourcing? No, there are many companies that very well can move operations out of the country, and they do.
Again, isn't that what the left-wing has been complaining about for decades, that companies are moving operations out of the country, because the cost of labor in China or India is lower?
Now you are arguing that raising the cost of labor never has any negative effect? Which is it?
Then you tell me, explain to me why companies are outsourcing to China if the cost of labor is not the factor?
Or are you actually trying to suggest that increasing how much you pay people..... doesn't increase the cost of labor?
You explain your logic here. You tell me how that works.
True, but left-wingers don't even acknowledge the negative impact of taxes and regulations.
But generally they admit that jobs move oversees. And most of the time, they claim that it is because labor is cheaper.
So I don't understand how they can claim the reason jobs are over seas is because labor is cheaper......
and turn around and say raising the minimum wage, which I think we can all agree increases the cost of labor.... won't have a negative impact,
.....five full seconds after admitting companies are moving jobs over seas because labor is cheaper.
Those two claims are mutually exclusive. One has to be false.
What is then the threshold beyond which the MW becomes toxic?
How quickly can we raise it before we experience negative effects?
Are you surprised that companies will lay off workers when MW increases raises their costs beyond the threshold of the revenue they generate?
What is then the threshold beyond which the MW becomes toxic?
401ks are Chicken ShitAre you really pretending that 401K's and IRA's don't invest in these companies? The market today is not restricted to a relative handful of wealthy investors, unlike what you've apparently been told.Who got the money when they spent it on their own stock? It wouldn't be retirees or 401K owners who got a windfall in their portfolios because the price went up, would it?Raising minimum wage does not fuk up the economyIt is a horseshit issueMinimum wage is a horseshit issue. But, it stirs up the dummies and gives government more power - so it's irresistible to Democrats.
It should have been raised 10 years ago and future raises should be tied to inflation
You know why it wasn't? Because politicians are afraid of getting voted out of office for fucking up the economy.
Cutting corporate taxes by 40 percent did
Why would companies being able to investment more money into the economy... cause a problem in the economy? That makes no logical sense.
Further, I pretty sure I heard you in the past say that corporations were off shoring jobs out of the country, because labor is cheaper.......... now you are suggesting that increasing the cost of labor could not possibly harm the economy.
Do you not see those two claims are mutually exclusive?
Only those companies did not use the 40 percent tax cut to invest in the economy, they bought back stock
Guess what? The minimum wage worker will invest almost all of that $15 into the economy
Other billionaires
Our nations wealth sits with the top five percent
View attachment 452861
If you have worked twelve years for minimum wage...you have failed in life.Who gets their income doubled over night for no reason except their existence?
12 years since the last raise is not overnight
Very few Minimum Wage earners have worked the last 12 years at the same job for the same wage.
Any who have? Sure give them a little bit more.
But for the vast majority of min wage earners, that just isn't the case.
RW doesn't do "facts". He prefers to flame, troll, and shitpost.It added trillions to our debt.
The corporate tax cut? Show your math.
